Eat whatever you want AND Lose Weight!!
Options
Replies
-
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.
This whole post is based horrible assumptions. I was giving you an example (myself) of how it works also giving you examples of whole societies that "cut out a whole food group" and thrive. I even linked an article discussing that exact phenomenon.
I backed up my argument with scientific and historical data to show you how your thought process and position was flawed.
While not succinct my post is wholly in response to yours.
No, your entire post was very scattered and Inuit are an extreme example but they still eat berries and other sugary/starchy foods during the warmer months; why didn't you include the Okinawans who eat very little fat? You proved nothing but the fact that you can throw a bunch of things together and then create a straw man, somehow, and then think you have something. My point had nothing to do with how certain cultures are forced to adapt to their food environments, but how it's not necessary to cut out whole groups in order to lose weight. Seriously, you didn't even comprehend a thing I said.4 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm glad you've found what works for you, however I wouldn't extrapolate that to everyone. Many people struggle with moderation, or have issues with counting calories, so sometimes people do need to eliminate or seriously limit certain foods in order to be able to get into a calorie deficit. And depending on your TDEE, a reward meal or two during the week can completely derail your progress, so it's important to pay attention to what you are choosing for a cheat meal. A burger and fries in all their greasy awesomeness could easily take up someone's entire calorie allotment for the day, or even push them over their maintenance calories.
Yet the fact remains that when someone asks, "Can I eat X and still lose weight as long as I stay under my calories for the day or lower my intake the rest of the week to make it up?" the answer is always "Yes." Always.@Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.
Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.
Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.
But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.
The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.
While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.
Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.
No one said it was easy. Simple =\= easy.
Marathons are simple.
Therein lies the rub!
A lot of time when something is NOT easy, so not easy that it becomes impractical. So impractical that it renders the thing moot, inapplicable.
If you want simple, why even go to CICO. Why not just eat less, move more?
Your marathon analogy is apt. How many morbidly obese people see marathon as an applicable approach to lose weight?
It sounds like you misunderstand what CICO actually is.8 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »oliverneedsyou wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »oliverneedsyou wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Nice except it's not entirely true. Not everyone has a huge calorie allowance. Some people can have one of those 800+ calories in a double cheeseburger meal and be left trying to manage the rest of the day with not many calories to work with and end up hungry. So yeah. It's true, more true for people with larger allowances. But it just is not worth it to spend half of my daily allowance on a single meal.
But that's your preference. I'm on 1200 a day for like 17 more pounds and I have been known to save all of my calories for some olive garden at dinner.
It's my preference to not walk around starving half the day. Exactly. And for a great many people spending hours each day feeling seriously hungry leads up to hunger fueled binging. I think that is a ridiculous thing for you to say in regards to preference. The general sentiment is for people to eat in a way that prevents out of control binging because you won't have success if you continue that pattern. Not everyone wants to starve all day just for a single meal. So if starving all day just for one meal at night works for you then go for it. But the point here is that this is not going to help a lot of people in their efforts to lose weight.
That's why it's important for each individual to find what works best and is sustainable for them. Saving my calories for a bomb dinner works for me because even if I had lunch and my husband offers to go to Olive Garden I'm going to want to go eat it! Instead I plan for it. And as someone else said, it's not as if that is what every day looks like for me. All though if it were that wouldn't be a problem because it's basic CICO since I don't have a medical condition requiring me to eat 3 square meals a day or anything.
Lots of things can set people up to fail. That's the beauty of getting to chose how we spend our calories and when we eat them.
See this doesn't work for me. I get hungry and it is raging. I become a jerk, emotional, and tired. I am not the best me. So for *ME* I would rather just keep it even keel and enjoy the other parts of my life.
This is a perfect example of how two different personalities and bodies handle CICO. And it's okay.
Yes exactly! Most of my days are focused more on macros and lower calorie foods so high volume spread out during the day But I sure do enjoy my rarely planned splurge dinners1 -
@tmoneyag99 You are reading so much into the OP's post that is not there its crazy.6
-
endlessfall16 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm glad you've found what works for you, however I wouldn't extrapolate that to everyone. Many people struggle with moderation, or have issues with counting calories, so sometimes people do need to eliminate or seriously limit certain foods in order to be able to get into a calorie deficit. And depending on your TDEE, a reward meal or two during the week can completely derail your progress, so it's important to pay attention to what you are choosing for a cheat meal. A burger and fries in all their greasy awesomeness could easily take up someone's entire calorie allotment for the day, or even push them over their maintenance calories.
Yet the fact remains that when someone asks, "Can I eat X and still lose weight as long as I stay under my calories for the day or lower my intake the rest of the week to make it up?" the answer is always "Yes." Always.@Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.
Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.
Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.
But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.
The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.
While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.
Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.
No one said it was easy. Simple =\= easy.
Marathons are simple.
Therein lies the rub!
A lot of time when something is NOT easy, so not easy that it becomes impractical. So impractical that it renders the thing moot, inapplicable.
If you want simple, why even go to CICO. Why not just eat less, move more?
Eat less, move more is one reasonable application of CICO that leads to weight loss.Your marathon analogy is apt. How many morbidly obese people see marathon as an applicable approach to lose weight?
A surprising number but it usually doesn't work.
2 -
@tmoneyag99 You are reading so much into the OP's post that is not there its crazy.
We can't blame tmoneyag99 !
The OP wrote a novel, followed by several pages of responses.
Are you saying much ado about nothing? Which I agree btw.
0 -
-
endlessfall16 wrote: »@tmoneyag99 You are reading so much into the OP's post that is not there its crazy.
We can't blame tmoneyag99 !
The OP wrote a novel, followed by several pages of responses.
Are you saying much ado about nothing? Which I agree btw.
Yes I'm saying much ado about nothing. The OP coming to terms that weight loss comes down to a simple principle and providing examples of how she integrated that into her life does not merit that level of outrage.
The only poster I saw writing a novel was the one i mentioned.
4 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »@tmoneyag99 You are reading so much into the OP's post that is not there its crazy.
We can't blame tmoneyag99 !
The OP wrote a novel, followed by several pages of responses.
Are you saying much ado about nothing? Which I agree btw.
Yes I'm saying much ado about nothing. The OP coming to terms that weight loss comes down to a simple principle and providing examples of how she integrated that into her life does not merit that level of outrage.
The only poster I saw writing a novel was the one i mentioned.
A huge rant to be more specific. Much over nothing is right just eat whichever way works because in the end is all the same.3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.
Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.
Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.
But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.
The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.
While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.
Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.
For some people, moderation is something they would have to learn while for others it comes naturally with being confronted by what they're eating. Some of those some people don't want to do that, fine, let them, there's other approaches that work. But really, if everyone was deterred by "but it isn't easy", we would still be in the stone age.
We had a thread about this a while back and the conclusion was that 'moderation' really varies from one person to another too... For some it's a little bit of something regularly, for others it's the whole slice/box once in a while.
The bottom line is to find the right balance for a diet that will keep us satisfied physically and emotionally... and in the end it's really different for everyone. Some people just cut out some foods and don't feel deprived at all, but for others it just leads to binging down the road... So it's a lot of trial and error for people to find what works for them, but I think that OP's message is that you don't have to eat rabbit food or bland food to lose weight (and maintain the weight loss).
Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.
Only a tiny percentage of people who lose weight, regardless of method, keep it off for any substantial amount of time. Period. (Oh, and by the by, low carb has been around well over 100 years, longer than calorie counting, in fact, but I digress.)
To me it ends up as a 'which would you rather' question - would you rather eat whatever you want, just not as much as you might want, or eat as much as you want, but have to limit your options as far as what you get to eat? We all have to limit something. What, how much, or both. Pick your restriction. There is no right answer, there is only what is right for you.
Yes, high carb has been around lot longer too, what's your point? I was talking about weight loss diet prominence since 100 years ago not too many people were all that worried about obesity and low fat, low protein, and low carb were often used for medical reasons not weight loss.
Your second point is just a myth that is pushed by diet gurus. You cannot eat everything you want just because you restrict one macro or another. You will always need to be in a caloric deficit but by going low carb or low fat you and up with pretty much the same restrictions in different ways. The high calorie foods that humans tend to overeat are all high in fat, carbs and also salt. What you really mean is HOW you get into a caloric deficit is what's best for you.
Oh, and btw, if you do some research people who change lifestyle and learn proper eating, rather than guru prescriptions, do far better in the long run.
The fact is, simply, that low carb has been around longer than the 25 years that was postulated. Try not to read too much into that
. My point was that ALL attempts at weight loss, regardless of method, have abysmal long term success rates. IOW no one method is superior on a population level, which is why it is stupid to pooh pooh what other people are doing, especially if it is working for them. There is no "one true way".
The second point is true for me. If I eliminate/strictly limit certain foods, I can eat as much as I want of others. I can't eat "everything" I want, no. But I can eat as much of certain foods as I want because those foods are self limiting for me. I would have to deliberately stuff myself to the point of discomfort every day in order for me to get fat on a LCHF diet. I would find that unpleasant, to say the least, so I don't *want* to do that. I eat to satiety (IOW "as much as I want") and maintain a healthy weight. I lost 50 lbs and have kept it off for three years eating as much as I want (never going hungry). The catch? I couldn't eat whatever I wanted; I did have to give up certain foods. For me (and bear in mind I'm only speaking for myself here, YMMV), it is easier and more pleasant to give up certain foods, but never go hungry, than it would be to eat whatever I want, but have to either go hungry to keep from going over calories for the day/week, or do tons of additional exercise to try to burn off those foods. For me, going LC has been a "lifestyle change". I would never want to go back to my hangry high carb days.
What is "proper eating"? Please define that for me.
1 -
Your statement about the okinawans actually supports my position that it is entirely possible for a whole society to "cut out" or significantly reduce their dietary consumption of a "whole food group" without much effort. It also supports my position that dietary and nutritonal choices are more often externally influenced.
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."
I addressed your arguments directly with factual evidence and science that refute them.
I'm pretty sure I didn't rant.
Just because you are making false assumptions about my temperament does not make it so.
Just like making false assumptions (or failing to consider other details) does not make one weight loss philosophy correct or incorrect. It just makes your postion/argument incorrect unless you can provide further evidence that your position is correct. This is called debate and discussion. Emotion does not have to make an appearance.
Although I do see a trend. Long posts =/= rant. Just lots of thoughts about a subject with little time to do the typical professional editing. Frankly, I do not care about your eyes as much as I do nutrition and I tend to use a lot of words because I am so detailed oriented. My apologies if that offends you. Most people just scroll past rather than getting offended and getting their drawers in a wad.
Hope this helps!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naleynXS7yo
0 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tmoneyag99 wrote: »The OP falsely assumes that every (healthy) person's genetic, physiological, psychological, cultural, age and life style variables/constraints are exactly the same. I assure you they are not.
To be successful in your diet you have to find the approach that works best for you.
Know thy self and to thine own self be true. If you notice that just counting calories is not working out because you have difficulty sticking to it then there is something wrong in your process. Evaluate how you feel, and notice trends.
If eating LCHF diet WORKS for you... Do that. (It DOES work for some people)
If cutting out meat works for you... Do that.
If eating small portions of all your favorite foods works for you. Do that!
If Meal Replacement Shakes works for you. Do that.
If Fasting on the weekend works for you Do that
If Having a cheat meal once a week helps you have something to look forward to... do that.
If rules works for you and you find you are successful and it's EASIER for you to just boycott certain things. Do that
Don't make the following assumptions about other people's diet:
1) Your way and philosophy is how everyone should approach it.
2) There is no way X person's life is any more stressful than yours. (Your broken leg doesn't make their broken arm hurt any less. We all have different ways of dealing with these things.)
3) Goals don't matter. (A body builder "cutting" is not going to have the same goals or diet demands of a teenage girl in search of the thigh gap.)
4) Everyone just needs to count calories and they will be able to mentally handle the natural evolutionary biological response to famine. (If you think this, I suggest reading "Will Power Instinct" or at least look up Kelly McGonigal on youtube. It's great insight on how outside influences can horribly derail your self discipline and how we are biologically programmed to collapse when strawberry cheese cake is in our line of sight while on a diet.)
5) X didn't work for me, so it won't work for you either.
Finally and my favorite:
5) A person is fat again, clearly it didn't work for you or you wouldn't have gotten fat. Maybe they stopped doing what worked for them due to some life craziness and used food for coping rather than drugs and alcohol. It happens.
So while CICO is a HUGE piece of the puzzle and rarely can be ignored... There is a lot of fine tuning that comes into play to ensures success. That fine tuning is the result of evaluating the variables in your life, recognizing your limitations and strengths and working that into your approach
The OP made no such assumptions. Different approaches to maintaining adherence, different preferences and different goals do not negate the fact that it is possible to lose weight while eating food you enjoy so long as a calorie deficit is maintained.
Actually if you read in the thread you will see that she discusses how simple this is and that you can lose weight just by calorie counting. You can eat whatever you want and lose weight. (See title) She also goes on to invalidate her comment by saying eating higher quality food satiates more and increases likelihood to succeed. The thing is what satiates one person may not satiate another. Thereby requiring each person to fully understand the limits and constraints they work within. Those constraints can be mental, financial, physiological or even emotional. Here's a challenge for you. Spend a week eating your calories in just jellie bellies or Apples. Then please come back here and tell us how easy it was to stay with in your calories and still manage your body's biological response to the lack of dietary variety. (something that we are engineer to crave in the absence of emotional and mental food conditioning)
Finally, I am pretty sure I never said that it does negate them infact my whole post was about Finding and doing what works for you. However that may look. For some people, having a strong emotional connection to certain foods will preclude them from enjoying it while losing weight. It is *Possible* (that word means less than 50% statistically speaking) for Some people (More than one but less than all) to do it that way. However, it is probable (>50%) that not all of dieters can use the same approach of some dieters. Make sense? Because my statement is 100% logically sound.
The OP said that you can lose weight eating whatever you want so long as you maintain a calorie defict.
OP did NOT say, "you will be satiated no matter what you eat" or "You will be satisfied no matter what you eat" or "You will feel healthier no matter what you eat" or "It will be easy no matter what you eat."
You said, "The OP falsely assumes that every (healthy) person's genetic, physiological, psychological, cultural, age and life style variables/constraints are exactly the same."
No such assumptions were made or implied in the OP. The fact that weight loss will occur in a calorie deficit regardless of other dietary factors is not dependent upon a person's genetic, physiological, phychological, cultural, age and lifestyle variables/constraints. Therefore, there is no need to assume universality of these factors when stating the fact that weight loss is determined by energy balance regardless of the quality of one's diet.
Also, explaining ways to improve adherence to said calorie deficit or how best to include your dietary preferences and/or eat toward your health/fitness goals does NOT invalidate the OP's claim that you can lose weight while eating the foods that you love.
Saying that "you can do it but you'll have to approach it responsibly and with a plan" is not a contradiction.
As for your strawman argument about eating all jelly bellies:
1) No one said that eating nothing but low-nutrient, unfilling foods would lead to a happy existence so, yeah, that's a major strawman
2) Even if I did eat nothing but jelly bellies, if I maintained a calorie deficit I would lose weight
3) We've dealt with the lack of logic behind this exact same strawman about 1,363,894,527 times on this forum so please come up with a new one next time
4) I don't even like jelly bellies. Your strawman needs more Oreos.14 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »What @skyblu263 said was 100% right on the mark. Well said. Too bad so many people twisted it into something it's not.
She figured out what works for her. Her post is incredibly simplistic and ignores the idea that other people can and successfully succeed in long term weight loss differently than she. That is my beef. I'm glad she figured out what works for her. But because there are so many variations in approaches, it is unlikely that one approach and mental consideration will work for all others.
I know what you are saying.
This "cico" debate always highlights two major mindsets. One that argues the technicality of CICO, which isn't wrong, and the other that focuses on the whole picture/approach and practicality of a complete diet approach. If the OP indeed only talked about the underlining principle of cico, which I don't think she was, what with excluding sweet, etc., that would be as interesting and topic worthy as watching paint dry. Such conversation is akin to claiming "eat less, move more", which you never see anyone talk about.
Anyway, don't get worked up too much. You and others are just talking on different tangents.
1 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Your statement about the okinawans actually supports my position that it is entirely possible for a whole society to "cut out" or significantly reduce their dietary consumption of a "whole food group" without much effort. It also supports my position that dietary and nutritonal choices are more often externally influenced.
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."
I addressed your arguments directly with factual evidence and science that refute them.
I'm pretty sure I didn't rant.
Just because you are making false assumptions about my temperament does not make it so.
Just like making false assumptions (or failing to consider other details) does not make one weight loss philosophy correct or incorrect. It just makes your postion/argument incorrect unless you can provide further evidence that your position is correct. This is called debate and discussion. Emotion does not have to make an appearance.
Although I do see a trend. Long posts =/= rant. Just lots of thoughts about a subject with little time to do the typical professional editing. Frankly, I do not care about your eyes as much as I do nutrition and I tend to use a lot of words because I am so detailed oriented. My apologies if that offends you. Most people just scroll past rather than getting offended and getting their drawers in a wad.
Hope this helps!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naleynXS7yo
I agree completely with the part in bold now can you please stop doing it.8 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »tmoneyag99 wrote: »What @skyblu263 said was 100% right on the mark. Well said. Too bad so many people twisted it into something it's not.
She figured out what works for her. Her post is incredibly simplistic and ignores the idea that other people can and successfully succeed in long term weight loss differently than she. That is my beef. I'm glad she figured out what works for her. But because there are so many variations in approaches, it is unlikely that one approach and mental consideration will work for all others.
I know what you are saying.
This "cico" debate always highlights two major mindsets. One that argues the technicality of CICO, which isn't wrong, and the other that focuses on the whole picture/approach and practicality of a complete diet approach. If the OP indeed only talked about the underlining principle of cico, which I don't think she was, what with excluding sweet, etc., that would be as interesting and topic worthy as watching paint dry. Such conversation is akin to claiming "eat less, move more", which you never see anyone talk about.
Anyway, don't get worked up too much. You and others are just talking on different tangents.
I'm not worked up. Apparently everyone else is. Lesson learned: Long posts on MFP P!$$es folks off.
2 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.
Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.
Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.
But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.
The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.
While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.
Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.
For some people, moderation is something they would have to learn while for others it comes naturally with being confronted by what they're eating. Some of those some people don't want to do that, fine, let them, there's other approaches that work. But really, if everyone was deterred by "but it isn't easy", we would still be in the stone age.
We had a thread about this a while back and the conclusion was that 'moderation' really varies from one person to another too... For some it's a little bit of something regularly, for others it's the whole slice/box once in a while.
The bottom line is to find the right balance for a diet that will keep us satisfied physically and emotionally... and in the end it's really different for everyone. Some people just cut out some foods and don't feel deprived at all, but for others it just leads to binging down the road... So it's a lot of trial and error for people to find what works for them, but I think that OP's message is that you don't have to eat rabbit food or bland food to lose weight (and maintain the weight loss).
Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.
Only a tiny percentage of people who lose weight, regardless of method, keep it off for any substantial amount of time. Period. (Oh, and by the by, low carb has been around well over 100 years, longer than calorie counting, in fact, but I digress.)
To me it ends up as a 'which would you rather' question - would you rather eat whatever you want, just not as much as you might want, or eat as much as you want, but have to limit your options as far as what you get to eat? We all have to limit something. What, how much, or both. Pick your restriction. There is no right answer, there is only what is right for you.
Yes, high carb has been around lot longer too, what's your point? I was talking about weight loss diet prominence since 100 years ago not too many people were all that worried about obesity and low fat, low protein, and low carb were often used for medical reasons not weight loss.
Your second point is just a myth that is pushed by diet gurus. You cannot eat everything you want just because you restrict one macro or another. You will always need to be in a caloric deficit but by going low carb or low fat you and up with pretty much the same restrictions in different ways. The high calorie foods that humans tend to overeat are all high in fat, carbs and also salt. What you really mean is HOW you get into a caloric deficit is what's best for you.
Oh, and btw, if you do some research people who change lifestyle and learn proper eating, rather than guru prescriptions, do far better in the long run.
The fact is, simply, that low carb has been around longer than the 25 years that was postulated. Try not to read too much into that. My point was that ALL attempts at weight loss, regardless of method, have abysmal long term success rates. IOW no one method is superior on a population level, which is why it is stupid to pooh pooh what other people are doing, especially if it is working for them. There is no "one true way".
The second point is true for me. If I eliminate/strictly limit certain foods, I can eat as much as I want of others. I can't eat "everything" I want, no. But I can eat as much of certain foods as I want because those foods are self limiting for me. I would have to deliberately stuff myself to the point of discomfort every day in order for me to get fat on a LCHF diet. I would find that unpleasant, to say the least, so I don't *want* to do that. I eat to satiety (IOW "as much as I want") and maintain a healthy weight. I lost 50 lbs and have kept it off for three years eating as much as I want (never going hungry). The catch? I couldn't eat whatever I wanted; I did have to give up certain foods. For me (and bear in mind I'm only speaking for myself here, YMMV), it is easier and more pleasant to give up certain foods, but never go hungry, than it would be to eat whatever I want, but have to either go hungry to keep from going over calories for the day/week, or do tons of additional exercise to try to burn off those foods. For me, going LC has been a "lifestyle change". I would never want to go back to my hangry high carb days.
What is "proper eating"? Please define that for me.
Now when you say that you are self-regulating those foods then I will agree because this IS the whole idea of those elimination diets. You can't possibly eat enough whole, low-fat foods, to over-eat because of volumetrics (now the highly processed low-fat foods you can, which defeats the low-fat concept) and high-fat foods tend to make you just want to stop eating much so appetite suppression is a major feature.
What I mean by proper eating is developing eating habits that keep you within your energy and nutrient requirements and not constantly over-eating or being deficient in certain nutrients. If you watch those documentaries on the super obese one thing you tend to find is that they have very poor eating habits and eat a "gray" diet that often leaves them malnourished despite their high calorific diets.1 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Your statement about the okinawans actually supports my position that it is entirely possible for a whole society to "cut out" or significantly reduce their dietary consumption of a "whole food group" without much effort. It also supports my position that dietary and nutritonal choices are more often externally influenced.
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."
I addressed your arguments directly with factual evidence and science that refute them.
I'm pretty sure I didn't rant.
Just because you are making false assumptions about my temperament does not make it so.
Just like making false assumptions (or failing to consider other details) does not make one weight loss philosophy correct or incorrect. It just makes your postion/argument incorrect unless you can provide further evidence that your position is correct. This is called debate and discussion. Emotion does not have to make an appearance.
Although I do see a trend. Long posts =/= rant. Just lots of thoughts about a subject with little time to do the typical professional editing. Frankly, I do not care about your eyes as much as I do nutrition and I tend to use a lot of words because I am so detailed oriented. My apologies if that offends you. Most people just scroll past rather than getting offended and getting their drawers in a wad.
Hope this helps!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naleynXS7yo
I love K&P but my point was that you missed my point and argued something completely different. This is why I mentioned the Okanawans because they are at the opposite end of the carb/fat ratios -- and no they do not cut out any food groups they just eat very low fat and they are doing it because, like the Inuit, they have a specific food environment. Again, you just missed the point and that is you don't need those diets just the underlying energy balance that they help foster. If you don't adjust your lifestyle then the diet ends and you are no further ahead than before AND you start to yo-yo, which is worse, and never really get to the real lifestyle changes you need. No diet para-dime, high carb, low carb, high fat, low fat or whatever has managed to fix the obesity issue or everyone would be thin. What we need to do is teach people the principles of weight loss and maintenance and then those tools make more sense.
Now here was my original post:Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.
As far as your evidence I wasn't stating anything that was incorrect so not sure what you refuted but it wasn't my statements, it's easy enough to find the stats on obesity rising and to check when certain diets became popular and how long people tend to stay on those diets. Also, the high failure rate of diets is very well documented but if you would like to refute the actual points that I just reiterated please do.
0 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »tmoneyag99 wrote: »What @skyblu263 said was 100% right on the mark. Well said. Too bad so many people twisted it into something it's not.
She figured out what works for her. Her post is incredibly simplistic and ignores the idea that other people can and successfully succeed in long term weight loss differently than she. That is my beef. I'm glad she figured out what works for her. But because there are so many variations in approaches, it is unlikely that one approach and mental consideration will work for all others.
I know what you are saying.
This "cico" debate always highlights two major mindsets. One that argues the technicality of CICO, which isn't wrong, and the other that focuses on the whole picture/approach and practicality of a complete diet approach. If the OP indeed only talked about the underlining principle of cico, which I don't think she was, what with excluding sweet, etc., that would be as interesting and topic worthy as watching paint dry. Such conversation is akin to claiming "eat less, move more", which you never see anyone talk about.
Anyway, don't get worked up too much. You and others are just talking on different tangents.
I'm not worked up. Apparently everyone else is. Lesson learned: Long posts on MFP P!$$es folks off.
I remember a good joke in the student paper that said please keep your submissions below 500 words because no one wants to read anything longer unless they are being marked.
3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.
Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.
Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.
But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.
The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.
While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.
Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.
For some people, moderation is something they would have to learn while for others it comes naturally with being confronted by what they're eating. Some of those some people don't want to do that, fine, let them, there's other approaches that work. But really, if everyone was deterred by "but it isn't easy", we would still be in the stone age.
We had a thread about this a while back and the conclusion was that 'moderation' really varies from one person to another too... For some it's a little bit of something regularly, for others it's the whole slice/box once in a while.
The bottom line is to find the right balance for a diet that will keep us satisfied physically and emotionally... and in the end it's really different for everyone. Some people just cut out some foods and don't feel deprived at all, but for others it just leads to binging down the road... So it's a lot of trial and error for people to find what works for them, but I think that OP's message is that you don't have to eat rabbit food or bland food to lose weight (and maintain the weight loss).
Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.
Only a tiny percentage of people who lose weight, regardless of method, keep it off for any substantial amount of time. Period. (Oh, and by the by, low carb has been around well over 100 years, longer than calorie counting, in fact, but I digress.)
To me it ends up as a 'which would you rather' question - would you rather eat whatever you want, just not as much as you might want, or eat as much as you want, but have to limit your options as far as what you get to eat? We all have to limit something. What, how much, or both. Pick your restriction. There is no right answer, there is only what is right for you.
Yes, high carb has been around lot longer too, what's your point? I was talking about weight loss diet prominence since 100 years ago not too many people were all that worried about obesity and low fat, low protein, and low carb were often used for medical reasons not weight loss.
Your second point is just a myth that is pushed by diet gurus. You cannot eat everything you want just because you restrict one macro or another. You will always need to be in a caloric deficit but by going low carb or low fat you and up with pretty much the same restrictions in different ways. The high calorie foods that humans tend to overeat are all high in fat, carbs and also salt. What you really mean is HOW you get into a caloric deficit is what's best for you.
Oh, and btw, if you do some research people who change lifestyle and learn proper eating, rather than guru prescriptions, do far better in the long run.
The fact is, simply, that low carb has been around longer than the 25 years that was postulated. Try not to read too much into that. My point was that ALL attempts at weight loss, regardless of method, have abysmal long term success rates. IOW no one method is superior on a population level, which is why it is stupid to pooh pooh what other people are doing, especially if it is working for them. There is no "one true way".
The second point is true for me. If I eliminate/strictly limit certain foods, I can eat as much as I want of others. I can't eat "everything" I want, no. But I can eat as much of certain foods as I want because those foods are self limiting for me. I would have to deliberately stuff myself to the point of discomfort every day in order for me to get fat on a LCHF diet. I would find that unpleasant, to say the least, so I don't *want* to do that. I eat to satiety (IOW "as much as I want") and maintain a healthy weight. I lost 50 lbs and have kept it off for three years eating as much as I want (never going hungry). The catch? I couldn't eat whatever I wanted; I did have to give up certain foods. For me (and bear in mind I'm only speaking for myself here, YMMV), it is easier and more pleasant to give up certain foods, but never go hungry, than it would be to eat whatever I want, but have to either go hungry to keep from going over calories for the day/week, or do tons of additional exercise to try to burn off those foods. For me, going LC has been a "lifestyle change". I would never want to go back to my hangry high carb days.
What is "proper eating"? Please define that for me.
Now when you say that you are self-regulating those foods then I will agree because this IS the whole idea of those elimination diets. You can't possibly eat enough whole, low-fat foods, to over-eat because of volumetrics (now the highly processed low-fat foods you can, which defeats the low-fat concept) and high-fat foods tend to make you just want to stop eating much so appetite suppression is a major feature.
What I mean by proper eating is developing eating habits that keep you within your energy and nutrient requirements and not constantly over-eating or being deficient in certain nutrients. If you watch those documentaries on the super obese one thing you tend to find is that they have very poor eating habits and eat a "gray" diet that often leaves them malnourished despite their high calorific diets.
I eat high fat foods... But keep the carbs low. It won't work for everyone, I recognize that. Some are, as you point out, "volume eaters". So high fat, low carb won't typically work for them. They need to feel physically full to be sated. I, otoh, do better with high fat foods (fatty cuts of meat, whole eggs, butter, cream, other full fat dairy, seeds and nuts, avocados, etc). I find the fat satiating, even with less volume. I used to employ the volume eating strategy, but despite feeling physically "full" I still felt "hungry". I suppose it's hard to explain if it's not something you have actually experienced. But yes, as you point out the high fat foods effectively suppress my appetite so I can "trust" my hunger cues (so I don't need to count calories). If I stick with those high fat foods (predominantly; I throw some vegetation in for micros), then I can eat as much as I want. And to me being able to eat "as much as I want" is way more important than being able to eat "whatever I want". But I think that boils down to personal preference.
As for proper eating - seems like your definition encompasses a pretty broad range of diets, including low fat, low carb, paleo, vegan, etc. proper eating would basically be meating macro and micro nutrient needs, without overdoing calories? I think a lot of diets could be considered "proper" by those standards.
Interesting aside - I recently started trying to gain weight (I'm new to lifting and working on a slow bulk). I have found it necessary to up my carbs in order to have enough of an appetite to be able to eat enough calories to gain. It really is a mind *kitten* to switch gears and try to overeat. Until I added back some carbs I struggled to eat enough (a problem I never dreamed I would have back in my higher carb days). As it turns out, bananas, rice, and potatoes really do make me more hungry, lol. It wasn't just my imagination. Satiety is an odd thing....
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions